1: \documentclass[10pt,aps,showpacs,a4paper,floatfix,twocolumn,tightenlines]{revtex4}
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \usepackage{psfig}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \usepackage{graphics}
7: \usepackage{xspace}
8: \usepackage{amssymb}
9: \usepackage{amsmath}
10: \usepackage{latexsym}
11: \usepackage{natbib}
12: \usepackage{mathrsfs}
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: \topmargin=-1cm
15: \textwidth=17cm
16: \newcommand{\half}{\textstyle{1\over 2}}
17: \newcommand{\thalf}{\textstyle{3\over 2}}
18: \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle}
19:
20: \begin{document}
21: \title{
22: Spectral function and relativistic mean-field description\\
23: of (un)polarized $(e,e'p)$ reactions: a consistent picture.
24: }
25:
26: \author{Marco Radici and Andrea Meucci}
27: \affiliation{Dipartimento di Fisica Nucleare e Teorica,
28: Universit\`{a} di Pavia, and\\
29: Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare,
30: Sezione di Pavia, I-27100 Pavia, Italy}
31:
32: \author{W.H. Dickhoff}
33: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130, USA}
34:
35: \date{\today}
36:
37: \begin{abstract}
38: We analyze the unpolarized and polarized electron-induced proton-knockout
39: reactions on $^{16}$O in different kinematical settings
40: using two theoretical approaches. The first one is based on a relativistic
41: mean-field distorted-wave description of the bound and scattering states of
42: the proton, including a fully relativistic electromagnetic current operator.
43: The second approach adopts the same current operator, but describes the
44: proton properties consistently on the basis of microscopic calculations of the
45: self-energy in ${}^{16}$O below the Fermi energy and final-state damping in
46: nuclear matter above the Fermi energy, using the same realistic short-range
47: and tensor correlations.
48: Good agreement with all unpolarized and polarized data is obtained at low and
49: high $Q^2$ by using the same spectroscopic factors fixed by the low-$Q^2$
50: analysis, indicating that a high degree of internal consistency has been
51: reached.
52: \end{abstract}
53:
54: \pacs{25.30.Dh, 24.70.+s, 24.10.Jv, 24.10.Eq}
55:
56: \maketitle
57:
58: A long series of high-precision experiments on several
59: nuclei~\cite{frou,mou,bern,dewitt,lapik} have generated
60: a well established tradition which singles out exclusive $(e,e'p)$ knockout
61: reactions as the primary tool to explore the single-particle aspects of the
62: nucleus.
63: The experimental analysis has focused on the missing energy spectrum of the
64: nuclear response, assigning specific quantum numbers
65: and spectroscopic factors to the various peaks corresponding to orbitals
66: close to the Fermi energy.
67: In addition, the missing momentum dependence of these spectra has been
68: studied, stimulating for example the exploration of the high-momentum
69: components induced by nucleon-nucleon correlations inside
70: nuclei~\cite{mudi,mupodick}.
71: The theoretical description of these reactions have usually been performed
72: in the framework of the nonrelativistic distorted-wave impulse approximation
73: (DWIA), including the Coulomb distortion of the electron and
74: proton waves due the presence of the nuclear
75: field~\cite{frou,bgprep,book,kellyrep}.
76: This approach was able to describe to a high degree
77: of accuracy the shape of the experimental momentum distribution for
78: several nuclei in a wide range of different kinematics~\cite{book,kellyrep}.
79: However, a systematic rescaling of the normalization of the
80: bound state, interpreted as the spectroscopic factor for the corresponding
81: level, had to be applied in order to reproduce the magnitude of the experimental
82: distribution~\cite{lapik,pandharep}. This systematic
83: deviation from the mean-field expectations has clearly identified the limits
84: of this approximation.
85: In fact, nowadays a clear picture has emerged in which
86: a considerable mixing between single-hole states and more complicated
87: configurations results in a fragmentation of the
88: single-particle strength in several peaks around and beyond the Fermi surface.
89: A further depletion of the single-particle strength is induced by short-range
90: and tensor correlations between nucleon pairs in the
91: ground state~\cite{dimu,dickrep}.
92:
93: More recent $(e,e'p)$ experiments have been carried out at the Jefferson
94: Laboratory (JLAB)~\cite{e89003,e89033} at higher momentum transfer $Q^2$ and
95: with increased statistics such that the fully differential cross section
96: is now directly available. The new kinematic domain required a
97: substantial upgrade of several theoretical ingredients in order to incorporate
98: all possible relativistic effects. Models based on relativistic DWIA (RDWIA)
99: have been developed, where the Dirac equation is solved directly
100: for the nucleon bound and scattering states~\cite{pickvanord,jinonl,spain,heda}
101: or, equivalently, a Schr\"odinger-like equation is solved
102: and the spinor distortion by the Dirac scalar and vector potentials is
103: incorporated in an effective
104: current operator in the so-called effective Pauli reduction~\cite{heda,kelly}.
105: A successful description of the data has been achieved, but slightly different
106: spectroscopic factors are deduced, because the
107: relativistic optical potentials in general give a stronger residual
108: final-state interaction (FSI) than
109: the corresponding nonrelativistic ones~\cite{spain,bgpc}.
110: Moreover, the limits of validity of the older
111: DWIA analysis versus RDWIA were not always properly explored, as discussed in
112: Ref.~\cite{mgp}, resulting, for example, in a certain degree of ambiguity for
113: the spectroscopic factors extracted at low energy.
114:
115: Despite several sources of theoretical uncertainties (different equivalent
116: potentials for FSI, relativistic effects on both FSI and spectroscopic factors,
117: off-shell effects...), a consistent microscopic treatment of the $(e,e'p)$
118: reaction mechanism at different kinematics is highly desirable.
119: Results for a first attempt towards this goal were recently obtained
120: in Ref.~\cite{rdr} (see also Ref.~\cite{ryck} concerning the treatment of FSI),
121: where a successful analysis of low- and high-$Q^2$ data was performed using
122: identical spectroscopic factors which were deduced at low $Q^2$.
123: In the present paper, this analysis is extended to the corresponding JLAB
124: experiment with polarization, as reported in Ref.~\cite{e89033}.
125: The results will then be compared with those obtained in the RDWIA approach of
126: Ref.~\cite{mgp}, where a consistent description of low- and high-energy data
127: was generated and a careful analysis of the limits of the nonrelativistic DWIA
128: was carried out. The sensitivity to different off-shell prescriptions
129: for the electromagnetic current operator will be also discussed~\cite{meu},
130: but the difference between spectroscopic factors obtained by nonrelativistic
131: and relativistic analyses remains unsolved and its discussion is beyond
132: the scope of this paper.
133:
134: The basic ingredient of the calculation is the transition amplitude
135: (omitting spin degrees of freedom for simplicity)~\cite{book,rdr}
136: \begin{eqnarray}
137: J^{\mu}_n (\omega ,\vec q, \vec p_N^{\, \prime}, E_R) = \int d \vec p
138: \ d \vec p^{\, \prime} \
139: \chi^{\left( -\right)\, *}_{p'_{\scriptscriptstyle N}
140: E_{\scriptscriptstyle R} n} (\vec p^{\, \prime}) \nonumber \\
141: \times \ {\hat J}_{\rm eff}^{\mu}
142: (\vec p, \vec p^{\, \prime}, \vec q, \omega) \
143: \phi^{}_{E_{\scriptscriptstyle R} n} (\vec p) \ [Z_n(E_R)]^{1\over 2} \ ,
144: \label{eq:scattampl}
145: \end{eqnarray}
146: where $\vec q, \omega$ are the momentum and energy transferred to the target
147: ($Q^2 = q^2 - \omega^2$) and $\vec p_N^{\, \prime}$ is the knocked-out nucleon
148: momentum, leaving the residual nucleus in a well-defined state with energy
149: $E_R$ and quantum numbers $n$. The function $\phi^{}_{E_{\scriptscriptstyle R} n}$
150: describes the overlap between the exact $A-$body initial state
151: and the residual $(A-1)-$body state induced by producing a hole;
152: $\chi^{\left( -\right)}_{p'_{\scriptscriptstyle N} E_{\scriptscriptstyle R} n}$
153: describes the same kind of overlap when producing the hole in the exact
154: $A$-body final state~\cite{book}. The norm
155: of $\phi^{}_{E_{\scriptscriptstyle R} n}$ is 1 and $Z_n (E_R)$ is the
156: spectroscopic factor associated with the removal process, i.e., it corresponds
157: to the probability that the residual nucleus can indeed be considered
158: as the target nucleus with a hole.
159: The boundary conditions of the eigenvalue problem for
160: $\chi^{\left( -\right)}_{p'_{\scriptscriptstyle N} E_{\scriptscriptstyle R} n}$
161: are those of an incoming wave.
162:
163: In the RDWIA of Refs.~\cite{mgp,meu}, $\phi^{}_{E_{\scriptscriptstyle R} n}$
164: is replaced by the solution of a Dirac equation~\cite{adfx} deduced in the
165: context of a relativistic mean-field theory
166: that satisfactorily reproduces global and single-particle properties of several
167: nuclei~\cite{lala}.
168: For the scattering states the effective Pauli reduction is applied.
169: The Darwin nonlocality factor, that contains the effect
170: of the negative-energy components of the spinor, is reabsorbed in the current
171: operator, which becomes
172: an effective relativistic one-body operator depending on the Dirac scalar
173: and vector potentials~\cite{heda,kelly}, as well as on the chosen
174: off-shell prescription (cc1, cc2, or cc3)~\cite{defo,meu}.
175: The function $\chi^{\left( -\right)}_{p'_{\scriptscriptstyle N}
176: E_{\scriptscriptstyle R} n} \sim
177: \chi^{\left( -\right)}_{p'_{\scriptscriptstyle N}}$ becomes a two-component
178: spinor which solves the
179: Schr\"odinger equation with the equivalent central and spin-orbit potentials
180: expressed in terms of the original Dirac scalar and vector
181: ones~\cite{cooper}.
182:
183: In Ref.~\cite{rdr} the transition amplitude is evaluated by systematically
184: applying the effective Pauli reduction to both the initial and final Dirac
185: spinors, determining the relevant integrals in momentum space
186: thus avoiding any effective momentum approximation (EMA)~\cite{kelly}.
187: The current operator displays the same features as in the RDWIA
188: discussed above, i.e., it is an effective one-body relativistic operator
189: depending on the Dirac scalar and vector potentials. In Ref.~\cite{rdr}
190: only the cc1 off-shell prescription has been
191: considered for compatibility with older low-energy data analyses~\cite{prbdm}.
192: The scattering state of the (very energetic) proton is described in the eikonal
193: approximation by a uniformly damped plane wave, or, equivalently, by a
194: plane wave with a complex momentum
195: $\vec p_f^{\, \prime} = \vec p_N^{\, \prime} + i \vec
196: p^{}_I$~\cite{br,cannata}. The imaginary part $p_I$ is microscopically
197: justified by linking the proton absorption to the same process taking place
198: in nuclear matter and by calculating the nucleon self-energy in a
199: self-consistent manner with realistic short-range and tensor
200: correlations~\cite{dr,rdr}.
201: The observed damping is also in agreement with experimental expectations in
202: different kinematic domains~\cite{ne18}, however, embedding the proton in
203: nuclear matter prevents the inclusion of spin-orbit effects; therefore,
204: the corresponding Darwin nonlocality factor for the final state is just
205: 1. The function $\phi^{}_{E_{\scriptscriptstyle R} n}$ is obtained from
206: $p$-shell quasihole states deduced from the nucleon self-energy calculated
207: for ${}^{16}$O using realistic short-range and tensor
208: correlations~\cite{mupodick}.
209:
210: The hadronic tensor of the reaction, $W^{\mu \nu}$, involves an average over
211: initial states and a sum over the undetected final states of bilinear products
212: of the scattering amplitude (\ref{eq:scattampl}).
213: The differential cross section for the $(\vec e, e' \vec p)$ reaction, with
214: initial beam helicity $h$ and proton polarization component $\hat s$,
215: becomes~\cite{book}
216: \begin{equation}
217: \begin{array}{l}
218: {\ds {{d \sigma_{h \, \hat s}} \over {d \vec p_e^{\, \prime}
219: d \vec p_N^{\, \prime} } } = { e^4 \over {16 \pi^2}} {1 \over Q^4 p_e p'_e }}\
220: L^{}_{\mu \nu} W^{\mu \nu} \\[.5cm]
221: \equiv {\ds { e^4 \over {16 \pi^2}} {1 \over Q^4 p_e p'_e } }\
222: L^{}_{\mu \nu} \ \
223: {\lower7pt\hbox{$_i$}} \kern-7pt \hbox{$\overline \sum$} \
224: \hbox{\hbox {$\sum$} \kern-15pt {$\displaystyle \int_f$\ } } J^{\mu}_n
225: J^{\nu \, *}_n \ \delta
226: \left( E^{}_f - E^{}_i - \omega \right) \\[.5cm]
227: = {\ds {{d \sigma^o} \over {d \vec p_e^{\, \prime} d \vec p_N^{\, \prime} }}
228: \ \frac{1}{2} } \
229: \left[ 1 + \vec P \cdot {\hat s} +
230: h \left( A + \vec P^{\, \prime} \cdot {\hat s} \right) \right] \ ,
231: \end{array}
232: \label{eq:cross}
233: \end{equation}
234: where $p^{}_e, p'_e$ are the initial and final electron momenta and
235: $L_{\mu \nu}$ is the lepton tensor.
236: The coefficients of the linear expansion are the induced polarization
237: $\vec P$, the electron analyzing
238: power $A$, and the polarization transfer coefficient $\vec P^{\, \prime}$.
239: The reference frame in the polarimeter is formed by the direction of
240: $\vec p_N^{\, \prime}$ ($L$ component), the direction of
241: $\vec q \times \vec p_N^{\, \prime}$ ($N$ component) and $\hat N \times
242: \hat L$ ($T$ component). In coplanar kinematics, as is the case for the
243: E89033 experiment at JLAB~\cite{e89033}, only
244: $P^N, P^{\prime \, L}$ and $P^{\prime \, T}$ survive.
245: When summing over the recoil proton polarization and the beam helicity,
246: the usual unpolarized cross section $d \sigma^o$ is recovered.
247:
248: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
249:
250: \begin{figure}[th]
251: \includegraphics[height=9.6cm, width=8.4cm]{fig1}
252: \caption {Upper panel: cross section for the $^{16}$O$(e,e'p)^{15}$N
253: reaction at $E_p = 90$ MeV constant proton energy in the center-of-mass
254: system in parallel kinematics~\protect\cite{nikhef}. Lower panel:
255: cross section for the same reaction but at $Q^2=0.8$ (GeV/$c)^2$ in
256: perpendicular kinematics~\protect\cite{e89003}. Data
257: for the $p\half$ state have been multiplied by 40 and 20, respectively.
258: Solid lines show the results when using the quasi-hole spectral function
259: for the bound state (see text) with spectroscopic factors $Z_{p1/2}=0.644$
260: and $Z_{p3/2}=0.537$ in both panels~\protect\cite{prbdm,rdr}.
261: Dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted lines
262: represent the result of the RDWIA approach with cc1, cc2, cc3 off-shell
263: prescriptions, respectively (see text). All the RDWIA curves in both panels
264: have been rescaled by the spectroscopic factors $Z_{p1/2}=0.708$ and
265: $Z_{p3/2}=0.602$, obtained by a $\chi^2$ fit to the data of
266: Ref.~\protect\cite{nikhef} using the cc3 current.}
267: \label{fig:fig1}
268: \end{figure}
269:
270: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
271:
272: In Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1} we first reconsider the unpolarized $^{16}$O$(e,e'p)$
273: reaction leading to the ground state and the first excited state of $^{15}$N
274: with $p\half$ and $p\thalf$ quantum numbers,
275: respectively. In the upper panel, data have been collected in parallel
276: kinematics $(\vec p_N^{\, \prime} \parallel \vec q)$ at a constant proton
277: energy of 90 MeV in the center-of-mass system~\cite{nikhef}.
278: They are presented in the form of the reduced cross section
279: \begin{equation}
280: n(\vec p_m, E_m) \equiv \frac{d \sigma^o}{d \vec p_e^{\, \prime}
281: d \vec p_N^{\, \prime}} \ \frac{1}{K \sigma_{ep}} \ ,
282: \label{eq:redxsect}
283: \end{equation}
284: as a function of the missing momentum
285: $\vec p_m = \vec p_N^{\, \prime} - \vec q$ at the considered
286: missing energy $E_m$, where $K$ is a suitable kinematic factor and
287: $\sigma_{ep}$ is the elementary (half off-shell) electron-proton cross
288: section~\cite{defo}. For ease of viewing, the results for the
289: transition to the $p\half$ ground state have been multiplied by 40.
290: The solid lines refer to the calculations employing the $p$-shell quasihole
291: states for $^{16}$O in a nonrelativistic framework, as
292: discussed in Ref.~\cite{prbdm}. The spectroscopic factors extracted from the
293: data are $Z_{p1/2}=0.644$ and $Z_{p3/2}=0.537$, respectively.
294: The dashed lines show the results of the RDWIA analysis
295: with the same cc1 off-shell prescription; dot-dashed and
296: dotted lines indicate the results when using the cc2 and cc3 recipes,
297: respectively. Hence, the comparison among dashed,
298: dot-dashed, and dotted lines shows the evolution in $p_m$ of the theoretical
299: uncertainty related to offshellness at this kinematics. Relativistic
300: mean-field bound states are obtained by solving Hartree-Bogoliubov
301: equations with finite-range interactions~\cite{adfx}. The proton
302: scattering wave is deduced from relativistically equivalent energy-dependent optical
303: potentials~\cite{cooper}. The resulting spectroscopic factors, $Z_{p1/2}= 0.708$ and
304: $Z_{p3/2}=0.602$, have been obtained by a $\chi^2$ fit using the cc3 current, which
305: gives an overall better description of the $(e,e'p)$ observables, particularly for the
306: left-right asymmetry. In the lower panel, the same reaction is considered
307: at constant $(\vec q, \omega)$ with $Q^2 = 0.8$
308: (GeV/$c$)$^2$~\cite{e89003}. The data now refer to the fully differential
309: unpolarized cross section $d\sigma^o$, avoiding any ambiguity in modeling the
310: off-shell behavior of $\sigma_{ep}$~\cite{defo}.
311: Again the solid lines refer to the calculation employing the $p$-shell
312: quasihole states but with an effective relativistic current operator and an
313: eikonal microscopic description of FSI as discussed
314: above (see Ref.~\cite{rdr} for further details).
315: The dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted lines still refer to the RDWIA analysis
316: with the cc1, cc2, and cc3 off-shell prescriptions
317: for the electromagnetic current, respectively.
318: The $p\half$ results are multiplied by a factor 20. The
319: theoretical curves are rescaled by the same spectroscopic factors as in the
320: upper panel. The agreement with the data remains very good also in this case.
321: This confirms the internal consistency of the two approaches, since the
322: spectroscopic factors correspond to a nuclear property that must be
323: independent of the probe scale $Q^2$. Incidentally, we remark that an extraction
324: of spectroscopic factors directly from the data of Ref.~\cite{e89003} most
325: likely produces ambiguous results, due to the small number of data points (8 only) of
326: the experiment. We tried such an extraction using the RDWIA curves,
327: but the fits had very high $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom and gave $p\thalf$ rescaling
328: coefficients which are systematically bigger than the $p\half$ ones, contrary to any
329: reasonable expectation (see also Ref.~\cite{e89003}). The
330: approximation introduced in the eikonal treatment of FSI, specifically the
331: absence of any spin-orbit effect, does not affect the agreement between the
332: solid lines and the data. Similarly, the sensitivity to the off-shell
333: ambiguity in the electromagnetic current operator is relatively weak.
334: After all, it is well known that the cross section is not particularly
335: sensitive to the theoretical uncertainties in the description of FSI
336: and the off-shell prescriptions within a range of about 10\%.
337: In Ref.~\cite{rdr} more sensitive observables in the unpolarized cross section
338: were considered. Good agreement with these data was maintained but, at the same
339: time, the limitations of this approximation emerged,
340: particularly in the left-right asymmetry.
341: Here, for the same kinematic conditions we extend the
342: analysis to polarization observables.
343:
344: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
345:
346: \begin{figure}[h]
347: \includegraphics[height=7.6cm, width=8.6cm]{fig2}
348: \caption {Polarization transfer components $P^{\prime \, L}, P^{\prime \, T}$
349: for the $^{16}$O($\vec e,e'\vec p$) reaction at
350: $Q^2=0.8$ (GeV/$c)^2$ in perpendicular kinematics~\protect\cite{e89033}
351: leading to the
352: $^{15}$N $p\half$, $p\thalf$ and $s\half$ residual states.
353: Solid, dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted lines as in Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:fig1}.}
354: \label{fig:fig2}
355: \end{figure}
356:
357:
358: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
359: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
360:
361: \begin{figure}[th]
362: \includegraphics[height=6.8cm, width=8.3cm]{fig3}
363: \caption {The ratio $P^{\prime \, T} / P^{\prime \, L}$
364: for the $^{16}$O($\vec e,e'\vec p$) reaction at
365: $Q^2=0.8$ (GeV/$c)^2$ in perpendicular kinematics~\protect\cite{e89033}
366: leading to the
367: $^{15}$N $p\half$, $p\thalf$ and $s\half$ residual states. Notations as in
368: Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:fig1}.}
369: \label{fig:fig3}
370: \end{figure}
371:
372: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
373:
374:
375: In Figs.~\ref{fig:fig2} and \ref{fig:fig3} the polarization transfer
376: components $P^{\prime \, L}, P^{\prime \, T}$ and their ratio
377: $P^{\prime \, T}/P^{\prime \, L}$ are shown as
378: functions of the missing momentum $p_m$, respectively, for
379: the $^{16}$O($\vec e,e'\vec p$) reaction at $Q^2=0.8$ (GeV/$c)^2$ and
380: constant $(\vec q, \omega)$ for
381: the transitions to the $^{15}$N ground state $p\half$, the first $p\thalf$
382: state at $E_m=6.32$ MeV and the weak peak with quantum numbers
383: $s\half$ rising above a continuum background at
384: $E_m \sim 28$ MeV~\cite{e89033}.
385: Solid, dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted lines refer to the same
386: calculations as in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}. For these observables and at this
387: kinematics, the sensitivity to off-shell effects is at most $\lesssim 15$\%.
388: The overall agreement with the data is still good,
389: particularly for the microscopic calculations with the $p\thalf$ quasihole
390: state that performs even better than the RDWIA analysis presented here or
391: obtained by other groups~\cite{e89033}. This fact is
392: remarkable, since the RDWIA analysis depends on mean-field phenomenological
393: potentials with several parameters fitted to the considered target
394: and energy domain, while the calculation with
395: quasihole states is basically parameter free.
396: In fact, from Eq.~(\ref{eq:cross}) it is easy to verify
397: that the polarization observables are given by ratios between a specific spin
398: projection of the cross section and the unpolarized cross section, eliminating
399: any sensitivity to the spectroscopic factor
400: which is anyway fixed from the very beginning to the low-energy data of
401: Ref.~\cite{nikhef}. Moreover, the calculations of the solid lines include an
402: attempt of a microscopic description of FSI in the framework of the eikonal
403: approximation in a way which is consistent with the description of the bound
404: state.
405: The limitations of such an approach are more evident in the $j=\half$ case,
406: where, contrary to the RDWIA analysis, the absence of any spin-orbit
407: effects is most likely responsible for the worse agreement. In any case, the
408: second $P^{\prime \, T}$ data point for both $p\half$ and $s\half$ shells
409: appears not reproducible in both calculations, causing the
410: theoretical ratio $P^{\prime \, T}/P^{\prime \, L}$ to deviate
411: substantially from the experiment.
412:
413: In summary, we have analyzed the unpolarized and polarized proton knockout
414: reactions on $^{16}$O at
415: different kinematics with two theoretical approaches. The RDWIA is based on a
416: relativistic mean-field description of the proton bound state and on the
417: effective Pauli reduction of the final Dirac spinor,
418: leading to a Schr\"odinger-equivalent mean-field description of residual FSI
419: and to an effective relativistic electromagnetic current operator which
420: depends on the Dirac scalar and vector potentials. The
421: same kind of Pauli reduction (and resulting current operator) is used for both
422: initial and final states in the second approach, where a microscopic
423: description of the bound state properties is obtained
424: by solving the Dyson equation with a nucleon self-energy which includes
425: realistic short-range and tensor correlations for $^{16}$O.
426: As an attempt towards full consistency, the proton scattering wave is then
427: generated in the eikonal approximation by microscopically
428: calculating the damping of a plane wave as a solution of the Dyson equation
429: for the nucleon self-energy including the same realistic short-range and tensor
430: correlations between the struck proton and the
431: surrounding nucleons in nuclear matter. A systematic good agreement with data
432: is observed for both unpolarized and polarized reactions at low and high
433: $Q^2$ by using the same spectroscopic factors fixed
434: by the low-$Q^2$ analysis, thus indicating that a high degree of internal
435: consistency has been reached.
436:
437: \vspace{.5truecm}
438:
439: This work is supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation under Grant No.
440: PHY-9900713. We acknowledge fruitful discussions with C. Giusti and F.D. Pacati.
441:
442: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
443:
444: \vspace{-1truecm}
445:
446: \bibitem{frou}
447: S. Frullani and J. Mougey,
448: Adv. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 14}, 1 (1984).
449:
450: \bibitem{mou}
451: J. Mougey {\it et al.},
452: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A262}, 461 (1976).
453:
454: \bibitem{bern}
455: M. Bernheim {\it et al.},
456: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A375}, 381 (1982).
457:
458: \bibitem{dewitt}
459: P.K.A. de Witt Huberts,
460: J. Phys. G {\bf 16}, 507 (1990).
461:
462: \bibitem{lapik}
463: L. Lapik\'as,
464: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A553}, 297c (1993).
465:
466: \bibitem{mudi}
467: H. M\"uther and W.H. Dickhoff,
468: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 49}, R17 (1994).
469:
470: \bibitem{mupodick}
471: H. M\"uther, A. Polls, and W.H. Dickhoff,
472: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 51}, 3040 (1995).
473:
474: \bibitem{bgprep}
475: S. Boffi, C. Giusti, and F.D. Pacati,
476: Phys. Rep. {\bf 226}, 1 (1993).
477:
478: \bibitem{book}
479: S. Boffi, C. Giusti, F.D. Pacati, and M. Radici,
480: {\it Electromagnetic Response of Atomic Nuclei},
481: (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996).
482:
483: \bibitem{kellyrep}
484: J.J. Kelly,
485: Adv. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 23}, 75 (1996).
486:
487: \bibitem{pandharep}
488: V.R. Pandharipande, I. Sick, and P.K.A. de Witt Huberts,
489: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 69}, 981 (1987).
490:
491: \bibitem{dimu}
492: W.H. Dickhoff and H. M\"uther,
493: Rep. Prog. Phys. {\bf 55}, 1947 (1992).
494:
495: \bibitem{dickrep}
496: W.H. Dickhoff,
497: Phys. Rep. {\bf 242}, 119 (1994).
498:
499: \bibitem{e89003}
500: J. Gao {\it et al.}, the Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration,
501: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84}, 3265 (2000).
502:
503: \bibitem{e89033}
504: S. Malov {\it et al.}, the Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration,
505: Phys.\ Rev.\ C\ {\bf 62}, 057302 (2000).
506:
507: \bibitem{pickvanord}
508: A. Picklesimer and J.W. van Orden,
509: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 40}, 290 (1989).
510:
511: \bibitem{jinonl}
512: Y. Jin and D.S. Onley,
513: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 50}, 377 (1994).
514:
515: \bibitem{spain}
516: J.M. Ud\'{\i}as, J.A. Caballero, E. Moya de Guerra, J.R. Vignote, and A. Escuderos,
517: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 64}, 024614 (2001).
518:
519: \bibitem{heda}
520: M. Hedayati-Poor, J.I. Johansson, and H.S. Sherif,
521: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 51}, 2044 (1995).
522:
523: \bibitem{kelly}
524: J.J. Kelly,
525: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 60}, 044609 (1999).
526:
527: \bibitem{bgpc}
528: S. Boffi, C. Giusti, F.D. Pacati, and F. Cannata,
529: Nuovo Cimento A {\bf 98}, 291 (1987).
530:
531: \bibitem{mgp}
532: A. Meucci, C. Giusti, and F.D. Pacati,
533: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 64}, 014604 (2001).
534:
535: \bibitem{rdr}
536: M. Radici, W.H. Dickhoff, and E. Roth Stoddard,
537: {\tt nucl-th/0203033}, submitted to Phys. Rev. C.
538:
539: \bibitem{ryck}
540: D. Debruyne, J. Ryckebusch, S. Janssen, and T. Van Cauteren,
541: Phys. Lett. B{\bf 527}, 62 (2002).
542:
543: \bibitem{meu}
544: A. Meucci,
545: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 65}, 044601 (2002).
546:
547: \bibitem{adfx}
548: W. P\"oschl, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring,
549: Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 103}, 217 (1997).
550:
551: \bibitem{lala}
552: G.A. Lalazissis, J. K\"onig, and P. Ring,
553: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 55}, 540 (1997).
554:
555: \bibitem{defo}
556: T. de Forest, Jr.,
557: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A392}, 232 (1983).
558:
559: \bibitem{cooper}
560: E.D. Cooper, S. Hama, B.C. Clark, and R.L. Mercer,
561: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 47}, 297 (1993).
562:
563: \bibitem{prbdm}
564: A. Polls, M. Radici, S. Boffi, W.H. Dickhoff, and H. M\"uther,
565: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 55}, 810 (1997).
566:
567: \bibitem{br}
568: A. Bianconi and M. Radici,
569: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 56}, 1002 (1997).
570:
571: \bibitem{cannata}
572: F. Cannata, J.P. Dedonder, and L. Lesniak,
573: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 33}, 1888 (1986).
574:
575: \bibitem{dr}
576: W.H. Dickhoff and E.P. Roth,
577: Acta Phys. Pol. {\bf B33}, 65 (2002).
578:
579: \bibitem{ne18}
580: N.C.R. Makins {\it et al.}, the NE18 collaboration,
581: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72}, 1986 (1994).
582:
583: \bibitem{nikhef}
584: M. Leuschner {\it et al.},
585: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 49}, 955 (1994).
586:
587: \end{thebibliography}
588:
589: \end{document}
590:
591: %%% Local Variables:
592: %%% mode: latex
593: %%% TeX-master: t
594: %%% End:
595: